Posts by Tyler Grant76

I'd like to ask the moderators and supermoderators for their take on what constitutes an appropriate penalty for making threats and doxxing.

So, reporting posts doesn't actually mean a ban? Interesting...

How long is the ban for a banned nickname? What about their clones?

Starting today , the article's word count is just 5,545 (with spaces, 4,714 without) 😬

I guess I can't say d@d@ didn't notice the post, since she actually quoted it and even found the link. But, how much does it really matter when we're talking about a student? 🙂 It's 30 points, so yeah.

Anyway, I'm not trying to clear WeM's record; I just want to point something out (aside from the double standards): WeM registered back in March 2003. Like me and plenty of others, he agreed to a different set of rules when he signed up, which aren't the ones being used now (Desiree). So, any articles added later 🤣 to the politics sub-forum rules don't even apply to him, because I—and he—never signed any amendment accepting these new regulations. At this rate, for a good portion of us, Sanader could be Smrnader, and you guys can just make up whatever rules you want.

And regarding Rachel Scott65's response: there are way too many rules anyway. They're written so that every single moderator whim can be justified by that "etc..." clause. It's pretty obvious that this allows moderators to hand out warnings as arbitrarily as if there were no rules at all. In that sense, they might as well just scrap them. You can ban things like breaking the law, blatant harassment, or doxxing, just like on almost any other US forum. Everything else is redundant as a rule, because it's all subject to a moderator's judgment anyway—they don't even need the rules; they can just moderate to prevent various situations.

Edit: Moderating isn't just handing out warnings and deleting posts, regardless of what the legal department at the Forum thinks about it 🙂

Henry Cox78 said:I guess I wasn't aware of that. 🙈

Man, that just won't hold up in court. It's right there in the subforum's policy rules 😉 I suspect a lot of people aren't aware, mostly because that rule gets broken all the time 🙂

Henry Cox78 said:I just reposted that exact same thing and it got wiped. Why's that? 🤷

Well, alright then. At least I didn't get slapped with a spam warning. 🤣

You aren't allowed to copy over 2,000 characters at once. The rules don't say you can't just break the text up into a few different posts. 🥳

Bryan Sanchez86 said:It's because you're trolling, which is exactly what I warned you about. First, you replied to me with a comment that had absolutely nothing to do with what you actually quoted, and then you tried to stir the pot by dragging the conversation off-topic toward veteran issues, which isn't even relevant here.

I honestly don't get why anyone thinks my post needs to be deleted. I was just telling Simba that if you look at the opening post of this thread, it’s pretty obvious there's no trolling going on and nobody is shifting the focus to veterans.

Since I want to believe someone just made an honest mistake here, I guess I'll spend a little more time repeating myself: the question was specifically about privileged access 🙂

Just have a little patience here. 😉 There really isn't any need to start new threads; just replying to existing posts should be enough.

Sarah Morgan2 said:Also, following up on the "critique"—since most people here haven't bothered to speak up, including some members with much higher post counts 🙄, I am genuinely pleased to have the chance to quote one of the greatest intellectuals on this entire LNP20 forum. Despite having a signature that essentially screams "Down with the low tendentious arbitrary moderator! Down with the incompetent administrative trash!", they actually agreed to moderate the Philosophy subforum and enrich this community, 🙏 a person who, about a year and a half ago—alongside all his previous appeals—clearly stated what we are all repeating here:

"A proposal for a separate (sub-)subforum dedicated to Language is more than justified,
because in its current state, the Social Science subforum
(excluding History) serves as nothing more than a platform for a handful of forum
linguists to act superior, among whom even the moderator herself is included (just look at
the thread , which she
decided to shut down purely because the title used the word "origin" instead of "originn" [sic].
Following such behavior,
this rich field of Social Science is reduced strictly to linguistics,
and when it comes to topics falling outside that specific domain,
they often ignore the actual substance of what a person writes, focusing exclusively
on how it is written, hunting for the tiniest error just to label someone as stupid,
uneducated, or illiterate.

This creates a toxic environment where people feel uncomfortable posting
for fear that a simple typo might get them branded with the label of an illiterate
idiot or moron, which is exactly why there is such poor development or survival of any threads
that aren't colored by linguistic pretension. Naturally, this benefits the moderator
and her crowd, as their expertise maintains hegemony by undermining everything else
within the Social Science realm. That is precisely why a separate corner should be opened specifically for language questions, where the moderator and her ilk can vent their frustrations that they apparently can't find an outlet for in life outside
this forum, thereby sparing the rest of the users who want to avoid such
an approach, allowing them to enjoy a more relaxed atmosphere
for discussions in the "Social Science" subforum, separated from the purely
linguistic section.

P.S.
If anyone finishes reading this and decides to go hunting for a typo or a grammatical
error in these very lines—and if you actually find one—
I suggest you print it out and shove that piece of paper straight up your ass.
If you don't own a printer, manual transcription is also an option.

There. Thanks for your attention. I hope this transcript meets at least
the standards of dignity required by the local grammar purists.
Should it fall short, I instruct those individuals to consult
the instructions provided in the aforementioned "P.S." paragraph.

Link to the quoted text:

😍 I guess everything's been said. Let's just go ahead and vote for the new moderators. 👋 👋

bluerider2 said:It feels like we're starting to lose our focus here, so if you'll allow me, I'd love to quickly summarize how things are currently shaping up. Because we've moved toward assuming this is all part of some perfectly synchronized group effort, those original complaints have been set aside in favor of putting together a list of candidates for the sub-moderator position. So far, the names on the list include:

• Sarah Garcia46
• Lila_sun
• Colbert
• Andrew Sanchez572
• LNP20

If I’ve accidentally overlooked anyone, please do feel free to jump in and let me know.

Oh, please, give me a break. 🙄 🙄 I might actually start believing it's really your fault that certain users on "your" sub-forum can just parrot anyone based on, well, supposed expertise. 😬
Look, I’m just an amateur who wants to improve my English without getting hit with "you should have learned this in elementary school." 🤷 Is it really that hard to realize there are plenty of us like that? We don't have bad intentions, and we aren't asking "stupid" questions just to be annoying. I've been embarrassed more than once by things I didn't know. Okay. I read constantly—it's been a lifelong thing—I have an ear for languages, and I actually liked school 😁 —so I honestly don't get how it's possible to struggle with things labeled as "obvious."
One of your responses suggested this happens because linguists aren't taken seriously. Well, damn, honey, maybe try earning some respect within related fields instead of blaming me when some (disagreeable) Americanist, translator, or journalist teaches me something incorrectly.
If anyone approaches the Language Advisor topic with total openness, they are mostly people outside your field. They aren't here to mess with you; they're here for help. With the attitude they encounter in those "expert" PDFs, all they're going to walk away with are negative prejudices toward both linguists and the language itself.

hollowtrucker77 said:Social Science folks, we still haven't seen a single actual example of this happening here
you're eventually going to realize that with things looking the way they do, it really just comes down to who you decide to believe

Could you maybe take a look at the posts from Abyssus? It’s the same thing happening across all the subforums. Or, I guess, maybe let the people who are actually complaining handle it. 🤷
By the way, I heard that on the high schoolers, it was deleted—and I think they might have even picked up a penalty for it. 😬

Sarah Morgan2 said:So, according to you, we should just let one person terrorize the majority? I am convinced that decent moderation—starting with warnings and moving to bans—would straighten out a problematic student. After all, that is how this forum functions. If not, then there is no need for Rules or moderators. This isn't some private chat room.

No, I mean, this kind of topic actually needs to be opened on this sub-forum 👍
Besides, even bluerider2 mentioned she’d love to have a co-moderator; maybe this is an excellent proposal to finally find one.

Anyway, this isn't anyone's private business.

True, 🙂

Hey, Vojky The budo 🙂

Look, if bluerider2 had to address every single complaint about Abyssus... we could probably fill an entire PDF just for the Complaints section 🤷 I get why she deletes stuff or moves it to SIM, or even suggests starting a thread here; honestly, that’s all part of being a moderator.
As for those controversial posts, I imagine everyone would struggle to filter through every single one just to strip out the insults. Besides, even a perfectly clean sentence—meaning, zero literal slurs—can still be loaded with a malicious tone. And then you have to craft a response too. It's a total pain. 😁 😉
Either Abyssus will moderate herself or she'll just leave. 🤷 I doubt bluerider2 can do much to help.

Well, maybe it’s actually a good thing that Abyssus lets off steam here because, let's not forget, she's basically working for the students 😬 Since you can actually squeeze some useful information out of her famous, rather insulting posts—and considering she's still very young—engaging with the forum might help her develop the social skills needed to become the kind of expert she clearly aims to be 👍 As much as I find her communication style crude or even ridiculous, I can't deny she's cleared up a few things for me. I guess I'd actually miss her if she were gone 🤷

Gary James88 said:...maybe some of those posts should just stay up. Since they're just people's thoughts—the kind of stuff you run into in the real world—it might be better to counter them with actual arguments rather than ignoring the fact that there are people all around us who hold views we find extreme.

Look, victims of sexual assault already know evil exists. So, if the only reason to leave comments from toxic or even mentally unstable people up is to "warn" potential victims that the world is full of creeps... I guess that's just pointless.
These "views" aren't extreme because of any deep ideology; they're just extreme in their sheer stupidity. You'll always find groups of losers who want to blame a victim's outfit for what happened. There’s plenty of them. You can't use logic to convince that crowd that clothing doesn't justify assault. They'll just keep reading threads like this, fantasizing about hurting women.
Do you really think they deserve a platform to satisfy themselves?

I’ve got a suggestion that might tackle part of the issue, and honestly, the Reddit staff has used this before: I don't see any reason why we shouldn't just permaban those few people who do nothing but provoke, insult, and threaten. Most of their posts basically boil down to pure trolling. There are fewer than ten of them, and they're pretty easy to spot 🤷
For this to actually work, it would probably be smart to get moderators involved who aren't just from the Politics sub
I really believe we could get things back in order in less than a week.

driftingdriver, the first thing you might want to wrap your head around is that when I'm calling you out in my posts, I'm not actually talking to you—I'm talking to the people who decide who gets to be a moderator. I think I've made that pretty explicitly clear more than once.
To some pompous jerk who desperately craves respect? I honestly don't have anything to say. There’s just no way for me to prove to you that it isn't normal to act entitled about a volunteer moderator position on a site like Reddit. You haven't earned any special respect through your contributions to discussions or your moderation, so expecting it based solely on the title... well, it just doesn't fly.
If I tell you clearly that I don't need to list out all your misunderstandings—since they're obvious to anyone with even an average IQ looking at your posts—then this post from me is basically redundant. Just like any other argument with you would be.
The question "why the hell is someone a moderator if they aren't actually doing the job?" obviously wasn't aimed at you personally.

Anyway, bye everyone, I'm heading back out. 👋

driftingdriver said:- Honestly, I’m down to discuss just about anything, provided there’s actually some point to the conversation.
- The whole issue here was centered on the idea of BANNING THE CROSS.
- In the US, debating whether we should ban the cross is just pure futility; why even waste breath on something that isn't even a possibility? (That’s why I pointed out that 90% of the population being Christian makes this specific topic completely pointless.)
- The thread starter only brought up banning the cross because they were triggered by a debate over banning the red star symbol; after being provoked by people with opposing views, they lashed out by opening a thread titled "Let's ban the cross."
- Politics isn't philosophy, so it shouldn't be used as a playground for debating abstract meanings and nonsense. If they wanted that kind of deep dive, they could have started a thread under religion or philosophy instead.
- What is the utility of discussing a ban on the cross when it is quite literally impossible to ban the cross in the US?
- So, the topic is closed because it was nothing more than a vengeful, trolling thread built on total nonsense. Those are my two reasons.

Well, you had the option to just move.

driftingdriver said:This is just trolling without any actual arguments to back it up.

Deleting topics or individual posts is just one of those standard moderation tools available to the mods when they need to clean things up around here.

It’s true that those who get provoked end up breaking the Reddit rules, but they were already being targeted far too heavily across various other topics and replies following that banned user, making any further punishment feel completely unnecessary. There was always a choice: you could either rain down a mountain of warnings and bans based on accumulated points, or simply deal with the root cause by banning the instigator once and for all. Of course, deleting the thread is the standard move, since it isn't ideal to let something like that remain accessible for anyone to read.

As I’ve already explained, this wasn't actually about banning the cross. If you're genuinely curious about why Constantin is partially banned, or if you want to understand the reasoning behind the discussion policy on the Politics sub, feel free to go dig through his profile. Just take a look at all the topics he's started under Politics or browse through his general post history; you'll find more than enough material there to read if you're looking for answers.

You’re just, honestly, being dense. Based on how you're interpreting this, I guess I won't be getting any credit for this post because I was a) pretty much baited by your nonsensical posts and b) I could very clearly argue to anyone here that you're struggling to grasp what you read, to understand yourself, or even to understand how this forum works.
I don't even need to lay out all my points; I'll just ask the people reading this thread to take a look at your claims. Almost every single one of them supports 👎

Setting aside bias for a second, but seriously, who would want any random PDF here to be moderated by someone as clueless as you? Huh? 😢

hollowtrucker77 said:driftingdriver, I have to say, I strongly disagree with you on this one!!
Insulting people just isn't okay, no matter what the context might be.
I honestly have no idea who or what this "Constantinople" character is supposed to be, but frankly, the posts being linked here are absolutely bottom-of-the-barrel.
Sure, a topic can be framed in a biased way or even set up by trolls, but we simply cannot—and should not—allow personal attacks to slide.
If anything, we've seen threads like this before where the users actually used their brains to steer the conversation back toward something sensible.

👍 I guess, if you want to moderate properly, you really need to understand what a forum actually is.

driftingdriver said:- This isn't actually the first time this has happened. Constantinopol has opened plenty of other threads just like this one. In the past, others were handed bans because of him—including some I personally handed out. He always found a way to wiggle out of trouble, didn't he? Well, he’s finally reached his limit, and he won't be able to participate in any more politics here.
- I have no issue with whoever wants to hand out bans on this topic, but I refuse to punish people who were simply provoked by a troll. The only reason this thread is still visible is because of this specific complaint. I decided to delete it after the discussion here concluded; otherwise, instead of just this complaint, the entire topic would have been wiped clean.
- If any of the supermods or admins wants to issue a ban, go ahead, but if you don't, the entire topic will be deleted by the end of the day.

When you really look at the big picture, driftingdriver, I guess the only real issue is that you aren't actually fulfilling your duties as a mod. Instead of managing the topics you can't handle, you just... delete them. 🤷
Those people claiming they were "provoked" are actually the ones breaking the Reddit rules. Even if his topics seem provocative, Constantinopol isn't doing anything wrong.
Could someone please explain the "provocative" nature of Constantinopolov's topic one more time? I'm a bit lost. 🙂
I’m asking the other mods, admins, or whoever is listening—please, can you comment on this decision not to sanction such blatant insults? And, if they’re up for it, maybe explain why someone who refuses to issue a warning for gross disrespect is still holding down a moderator position. 🤷

Roger Robinson682 said:I find myself in complete agreement with driftingdriver regarding the decision to close the topic about banning the cross. Honestly, the whole thread felt incredibly trollish and purely meant to provoke. I suppose I’m mostly curious about how the author attempted to link a sacred religious symbol to the emblem of a failed ideology in the first place. It makes me wonder—if we allowed a discussion on banning the cross, should we have expected follow-up threads calling for a ban on the Star of David or perhaps even the crescent and star? 🙄🙄

As for Constantin, I must say I was somewhat surprised he managed to stay active for this long without being banned. His topics were quite openly inflammatory and designed to incite a reaction. There were several moments where I felt my own patience wearing thin, and I had to catch myself just to keep from typing something out of turn... 😁

🙄 🙄 😁

I don't really get why everyone is so shocked. 🤷 I’d love for someone to give me a coherent explanation of how the cross, the McDonald's logo, and the five-pointed star are actually different.
Why shouldn't people discuss the symbolism of the cross? Are we going to pull out every dictionary of symbols from bookstores and libraries? Why couldn't someone view the cross as a symbol of evil? There are arguments for that, and there are arguments against it.
And then those points come up in discussions. For instance, on Reddit. They aren't being suppressed just because "90% of Americans are Catholic." : catholic :

Constantinopol posted the topic in the wrong subforum, but formally speaking, he didn't break any forum rules. Of course, moderators have the discretionary power to remove a user. But, given the sheer amount of trolling and "provocative" 😁 😁 topics that haven't been sanctioned, Constantinopol is being totally benign here. Even if his premises might be a bit silly, that doesn't justify the insults being thrown at him, nor does it justify a ban.